An alleged drug trafficker’s legal challenge to security service laws which give ministers the power to grant phone tapping warrants is set to continue.
Charles Steven Muscat, known as ‘il-Pips’, is challenging the constitutional validity of the laws, saying that they “completely ignore” legal safeguards introduced by the EU, with no judicial oversight.
Mr Muscat is currently awaiting trial over his alleged involvement in a drug-trafficking racket which was busted by the police in 2001.
Mr Muscat was allegedly one of four Corradino inmates, the others being Emanuel Camilleri, known as ‘Leli l-Bully’, Alfred Bugeja ‘il-Porporina’, and Mario Camilleri ‘l-Imnieħru’, who had plotted with close acquaintances outside prison walls to import a considerable amount of drugs into Malta.
A joint operation between Maltese and Italian police led to a drug bust which yielded some two kilograms of cocaine, one kilogram of heroin and 2,000 ecstasy pills heading from the Netherlands to Sicily and finally to Malta.
Investigators had obtained valuable information through telephone intercepts carried out by the security services on the strength of a warrant issued by the Home Affairs Minister.
Under local law, phone taps are only permitted if they are sanctioned by a warrant signed by the Home Affairs minister or Prime Minister.
Mr Muscat’s lawyers are contesting the validity of the phone taps, saying that making ministers responsible for issuing phone tapping warrants meant that the decision was made
“on the basis of a warrant issued by the Executive arm of government without any control by the judiciary.”
Defence lawyers have also argued that service providers keeping phone data which was then used by the authorities was in breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
The attorney general, police commissioner, Home Affairs minister and the security services head had argued that the matter had already been raised in another constitutional case filed by Mr Muscat.
However, the First Hall, Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided over by Mr Justice Toni Abela, observed that the earlier case had dealt with a decree delivered by the Criminal Court rejecting Mr Muscat’s request to summon the Minister as witness.
That court had made it clear that it was limiting itself to that specific issue “and nothing else.”
It noted that this plea concerned a different issue and that the case could therefore continue.
Therefore, the merits of the applicant’s claims had not yet been touched upon and had not been decided upon by the other Court presiding over his first constitutional case, said Mr Justice Abela, thus rejecting the plea of res judicata and ordering the continuation of the case.
Lawyers Franco Debono, Marion Camilleri and Amadeus Cachia assisted the applicant.